Google Sued For Infringing On Just Granted 'Enhanced Hyperlink' Patent
from the didn't-waste-any-time dept
Wasting absolutely no time at all, a Kentucky-based company appears to have gone straight to court on Tuesday, the same day it was granted a patent for a "method for adding a user selectable function to a hyperlink, and proceeded to sue Google for infringement. The patent appears to cover the ability to pop up various choices if you mouseover a hyperlink -- something that's pretty common these days and certainly not particularly difficult to implement. Does anyone really believe that a 20 year monopoly needed to be granted to some company in order to put in place the proper incentives for this functionality to be created?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Prior art
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
At this point, I'm wondering if it's possible for me to patent patents without the USPTO noticing and then sue them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hmm
If somebody can be granted a patent for something you're already doing, then sue you 30 seconds after the patent is granted, how is that fair?
Shouldn't they have to inform you that you're infringing, or at least give you enough time to read the patent and realize that you're in violation of it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perish
I also don't know how this company can copyright something I've seen done everywhere (if I'm reading this patent right). I think lots of web developers (including myself) are in trouble if this continues. I've mimicked what they've described using DHTML and even in Javascript well into last year. This is nothing new and I've seen it done numerous times.
Hell, even my old highschool's website used to use it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Perish
That's because they didn't copyright it, they patented it. Do you understand the difference? Because it's key to a lot of these items on Techdirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Perish
Company A is granted a patent for something that is obvious to create and many people already do. They then sue Company B for using that same idea.
Company B can then choose to fight the lawsuit from Company A or pay them off a sum that would be less than fighting a lawsuit.
If Company B decides to fight the suit in court, a stupid bonehead judge may rule in favor of Company A.
It is a small gamble, but Company A has a good chance to make a lot of money by patenting something that has not been patented yet.
Microsoft recently got a patent for scoring points in a video game.
Netflix recently got a patent for a "queue".
If they choose, they can hurt small competition simply by taking them to court. The lawsuit wont be deemed frivolous as there was a patent rewarded for that concept. "It is a bit silly how the American legal system works. Stupid at times too.
I also don't know how this company can copyright something I've seen done everywhere (if I'm reading this patent right). I think lots of web developers (including myself) are in trouble if this continues. I've mimicked what they've described using DHTML and even in Javascript well into last year. This is nothing new and I've seen it done numerous times.
Hell, even my old highschool's website used to use it!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
where?
I can't believe they got a patent for something so incredibly obvious. Christ, don't they ever check to see what OTHER "programmers" think of its obviousness factor before granting this crap?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: where?
Ok, if it's so obvious, then please tell me how hyperlinks will act/operate in the year 2014?
You can't. Nobody can. The hyperlink will simply evolve to some new functionality that someone, someday will have first concieved it, and that over time it proved useful and became popular - and that someone deserves something for his idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: where?
Exactly what product or service did I-LOR, LLC create between receiving approval of the patent and suing Google for infringement? Stop protecting people that have ideas - protect people that innovate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Pop up on mouse over
Opening a hyperlink in a new window
Bookmarks (a clickable ... text string... that would enable the user to return to the selected link at a later time)
Back buttons (...anchor the current page by creating an icon ... that would return the user to the current page)
Save As (view off-line which would, in the background download the files associated with the selected link)
I'm terrified of the precedent this sets as I look at this webpage. There's so much stuff that is patentable - banner ads, tabs, my Google search bar, etc, etc,. If software companies are going to be granted patents on software features, the entire landscape of the software industry's going to turn into a no man's land, with single company domance in any given area with patented features that effectively bar competition.
Spell check? Change tracking? Web-based email? What if people start patenting basic algorithms, even? You can't do MergeSort without paying a license fee?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What does "difficulty to implement" have to do with a good idea? Most good ideas are based on simple methods.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Proper Response to This Lawsuit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As they say "It can only happen in America" - Thank Christ!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You mean like... right click? I think that might've been done a while ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I know how to solve this...
muahahahahahaha
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Company suing google uses google...?
If you look at the site it's owned by iLOR LLC: "We're PreFound.com, which is owned and operated by iLOR, LLC. We're right here in the heart of Silicon Holler, in Lexington, KY."
www.prefound.com is a search engine that USES GOOGLE and creates groups based on users previous results, etc. Now doesn't it seem a bit weird that a company which relies on Google for its website is suing Google...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Company suing google uses google...?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
preFound
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
overzealous-ocity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Great. The patent system has just brought the entire industry of computer programming to a screeching halt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What they deserve..
Yes, they deserve to have their name(s) recorded in our history books. Nothing more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patent ideas
http://www.delphion.com/details?pn=US05443036__
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eat shit, USA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Leave the little guy alone
[ link to this | view in chronology ]